Starting a war with Iran?

[rwarn17588]

<mr. jaynes wrote:

Besides, if the Iranians had nuclear power, all it would take would be some mullah in that country to go insane over the USA, Israel or any othe perceived infidel, and it would be the end of civilization as we know it.

<end clip>

One nuclear bomb blast wouldn't end civilization. It wouldn't create enough damage to do so. It would take dozens or even hundreds of them -- something that only a handful of superpowers have.

If Iran did that, it would be wiped off the face of the Earth by Israel, NATO or who know who else. It's assured destruction.

And that's assuming Iran had a delivery device to put a bomb where it wanted it to go. Making accurate missiles that would squeak through air defenses is a lot harder.

What Iran is trying to do -- with the big caveat that whether nuclear enrichment is actually occurring and whether it's for sinister purposes -- is what Pakistan and India are trying to do. Create some deterrence against foreign invaders. Nothing like the threat of big nuke to give one pause.

[nathanm]

quote:Originally posted by mr.jaynes


And I may remind you that using nukes is what ended the war in Japan. Besides, if the Iranians had nuclear power, all it would take would be some mullah in that country to go insane over the USA, Israel or any othe perceived infidel, and it would be the end of civilization as we know it.

It worked with Japan because nobody else had nuclear weapons at the time. Now that others can retaliate? Not so much.

Also, there's a huge difference between the uranium one needs for nuclear power and the uranium one needs for bombs. It's not as if one can just go "oh, I think I'll make a bomb today" and take the uranium out of the reactor and toss it in a bomb.

Of course, the enviro-nuts have confused half the world on that very issue. The Bushian wingnuts have taken up the mantle to scare the populace about Iran.

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by rwarn17588

<mr. jaynes wrote:

Besides, if the Iranians had nuclear power, all it would take would be some mullah in that country to go insane over the USA, Israel or any othe perceived infidel, and it would be the end of civilization as we know it.

<end clip>

One nuclear bomb blast wouldn't end civilization. It wouldn't create enough damage to do so. It would take dozens or even hundreds of them -- something that only a handful of superpowers have.

If Iran did that, it would be wiped off the face of the Earth by Israel, NATO or who know who else. It's assured destruction.

And that's assuming Iran had a delivery device to put a bomb where it wanted it to go. Making accurate missiles that would squeak through air defenses is a lot harder.

What Iran is trying to do -- with the big caveat that whether nuclear enrichment is actually occurring and whether it's for sinister purposes -- is what Pakistan and India are trying to do. Create some deterrence against foreign invaders. Nothing like the threat of big nuke to give one pause.

Not arguing one way or the other about how many bombs it would take.  Did you ever read "On The Beach" by Neville Shute?  Very poingnant, yet disturbing book about the very last survivors of the nuclear holocaust.

[FOTD]

It's always been about oil. What a tragedy. Nothing to show for our investment nor our sacrifices....

Iran torpedoes US plans for Iraqi oil
By M K Bhadrakumar

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/JD03Ak02.html


THIS IS WORTH THE READ!
"Conceivably, Tehran would have decided with its accumulated centuries-old Persian wisdom that certain things in life are always best left unspoken, especially stunning successes. Besides, it is far more productive to leave Washington to contemplate over happenings and draw the unavoidable conclusion that if it musters the courage to make that existential choice, Iran can be an immensely valuable factor of stability for Iraq."

Wisdom vs. Reactionary?

"Out of the dramatic developments of the past week, several questions arise, the principal being that the Bush administration's triumphalism over the so-called Iraq "surge" strategy has become irredeemably farcical, and, two, US doublespeak has become badly exposed. What stands out is that Washington promoted the latest round of violence in Basra, whereas Iran cried halt to it. The awesome influence of Tehran has become all too apparent. How does Bush come to terms with it? "

What was Sen. Malarkey spewing disinfo doublespeak for this week? He's worse than the Chimp.

"Last week, five former US secretaries of state who served in Democratic and Republican administrations - Henry Kissinger, James Baker, Warren Christopher, Madeline Albright and Colin Powell - sat at a round-table discussion in Athens and reached a consensus to urge the next US administration to open a line of dialogue with Iran. "

Let's see. Obama wants this approach and was criticized here and elsewhere.

Dick Cheney must be having a hell of a time sleeping at night. What a complete failure.

[mr.jaynes]

quote:Originally posted by tim huntzinger

I do not think there will be an invasion.  I would expect a bombing campaign and a naval blockade by the international community.

quote:Originally posted by tim huntzinger

A blockade and air campaign would not comprise an invasion, so we are in the clear!  Bombs away!

Fine, a blockade on Iran it is; impose one on North Korea too, and if it all works to our advantage and that of the rest of the world, great. But I'm not above using miltary power to rectify the situation, either. The rulers of these nations pose a belligerent threat to the West and in the interest of peace, should be deposed.

quote:Originally posted by nathanm

quote:Originally posted by mr.jaynes


And I may remind you that using nukes is what ended the war in Japan. Besides, if the Iranians had nuclear power, all it would take would be some mullah in that country to go insane over the USA, Israel or any othe perceived infidel, and it would be the end of civilization as we know it.

It worked with Japan because nobody else had nuclear weapons at the time. Now that others can retaliate? Not so much.

Also, there's a huge difference between the uranium one needs for nuclear power and the uranium one needs for bombs. It's not as if one can just go "oh, I think I'll make a bomb today" and take the uranium out of the reactor and toss it in a bomb.

Strike first and keep hitting them. You can't reason with them.

quote:Originally posted by aoxamaxoa

No! Condi needs to get laid. Her thinking is all dicked up.

First Lady? Seperate beds by now for sure.

Maybe Condi and Shrub need to hook up to alleviate all the distress.....

With a video posted on youtube, right?

[FOTD]

^Rather inane Jane.


"Their walls are made of cannonballs. Their moto is don't tread on me..." Garcia/Hunter

[mr.jaynes]

quote:Originally posted by FOTD

^Rather inane Jane.


"Their walls are made of cannonballs. Their moto is don't tread on me..." Garcia/Hunter

Inane? No, someone was merely pointing out that the world of politics does indeed make for interesting bedfellows, and as a nod to all of the celebrity sex scandals, I took the matter further. Someone else took the lid off that pot, I simply carried it to another extreme.

[FOTD]

quote:Originally posted by FOTD

It's always been about oil. What a tragedy. Nothing to show for our investment nor our sacrifices....

Iran torpedoes US plans for Iraqi oil
By M K Bhadrakumar

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/JD03Ak02.html


THIS IS WORTH THE READ!
"Conceivably, Tehran would have decided with its accumulated centuries-old Persian wisdom that certain things in life are always best left unspoken, especially stunning successes. Besides, it is far more productive to leave Washington to contemplate over happenings and draw the unavoidable conclusion that if it musters the courage to make that existential choice, Iran can be an immensely valuable factor of stability for Iraq."

Wisdom vs. Reactionary?

"Out of the dramatic developments of the past week, several questions arise, the principal being that the Bush administration's triumphalism over the so-called Iraq "surge" strategy has become irredeemably farcical, and, two, US doublespeak has become badly exposed. What stands out is that Washington promoted the latest round of violence in Basra, whereas Iran cried halt to it. The awesome influence of Tehran has become all too apparent. How does Bush come to terms with it? "

What was Sen. Malarkey spewing disinfo doublespeak for this week? He's worse than the Chimp.

"Last week, five former US secretaries of state who served in Democratic and Republican administrations - Henry Kissinger, James Baker, Warren Christopher, Madeline Albright and Colin Powell - sat at a round-table discussion in Athens and reached a consensus to urge the next US administration to open a line of dialogue with Iran. "

Let's see. Obama wants this approach and was criticized here and elsewhere.

Dick Cheney must be having a hell of a time sleeping at night. What a complete failure.

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/04/05/africa/ME-GEN-Iran-Iraq.php

Officials confirm Iran's role in brokering truce between Iraqi government and Shiite cleric

[FOTD]

Sunday, April 06, 2008
IRAQ AND IRAN SET TO EXPLODE. AL-SADR MAKES HIS POINT – HE CAN TAKE ON THE U.S. IN A GUERRILLA WAR AT ANY TIME.

http://lataan.blogspot.com/2008/04/iraq-and-iran-set-to-explode-al-sadr.html

"But the big issue is not so much al-Sadr's ability to take on the US and the Iraqi puppet government but the support al-Sadr is clearly receiving from Iran whose influence on Iraqi affairs is so obviously beginning to acutely annoy the Americans. As well as being able to demonstrate that they have the ability to actually stop and start major fighting in Iraq, they are also supplying increasingly both arms and training to Iraqi Shiite militias of both factions within the Iraqi Shiite grouping, al-Sadr and the Mahdi militia and al-Hakim leader of the al-Badr militia who, while still having their differences, have called a truce with each other in order to confront their common enemy, the US."

[FOTD]

Betray us again....These idiots really don't know what kind of mess they are creating.

British fear US commander is beating the drum for Iran strikes

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/04/05/wiran105.xml

April 7, 2008  
Petraeus Testimony May Signal Iran Attack

by Paul Craig Roberts

http://www.antiwar.com/roberts/?articleid=12644

"The neocon lackey Petraeus has had his script written for him by Cheney, and Petraeus together with neocon warmonger Ryan Crocker, the U.S. governor of the Green Zone in Baghdad, will present Congress next Tuesday and Wednesday with the lies, for which the road has been well paved by neocon propagandists such as Kimberly Kagan, that "the U.S. must recognize that Iran is engaged in a full-up proxy war against it in Iraq."
[!][B)][]

[FOTD]

I say 75% chance we attack Iran before the summer.

Buchanan On McLaughlin: Fifty-Fifty Chance We Bomb Iran By Fall

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/13/buchanan-on-mclaughlin-fi_n_96444.html

"BUCHANAN: But I'll tell you what's coming, John. Petraeus pointed right at the special groups supported by Iran, as the main problem now. They are firing rockets into the Green Zone, they're responsible for Basra. The president said that Iran better not make the wrong choice. We're looking at 140,000 troops there by the end of the year, and very possibly airstrikes in Iran before this fall."

Strangelove indeedy....

[FOTD]

The Apocalypse is coming just like some christian fundamentalists are hoping for. More scare tactics and excuses to launch a major strike against Iran like the neo-fascist imperialists are pushing for. The Politics of Fear once again. One way or the other, either Israel or the US will attack Iran; it is just a matter of time...On the song of a sparrow, the military gears are a turning.

Israel test-fires 'Iran' missile
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/9F7B36C7-6928-478D-A190-787A50D85BD0.htm

Can you imagine if Iran had tested an "Israel" missile? Do you think the headline would be the same? We would not need to find this on an Al Jazeera link (go crazy IPLaw). Instead, it would appear everywhere.

[FOTD]

Report: U.S. Will Attack Iran

http://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/Report_US_to_Attack_iran/2008/05/20/97545.html

Tuesday, May 20, 2008 12:40 PM

Israel's Army Radio is reporting that President Bush intends to launch a military strike against Iran before the end of his term.


The Army Radio, a network operated by the Israeli Defense Forces, quoted a government source in Jerusalem. The source disclosed that a senior official close to Bush said in a closed meeting that Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney believed military action against Iran was now called for.


Bush concluded a trip to Israel last week, where he said, "The objective of the United States must be to . . . support our strongest ally and friend in the Middle East."



The Radio report, which was quoted by the Jerusalem Post, disclosed that the recent turmoil in Lebanon, where the Iranian-backed group Hezbollah had seized virtual control of the country, was encouraging an American attack.

Hezbollah's aggression in Lebanon is seen as evidence of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's growing influence, and the U.S. official said that in Bush's view, "the disease must be treated, not its symptoms," according to the Post.

The White House on Tuesday denied the Army Radio report, saying in a statement: "As the president has said, no president of the United States should ever take options off the table, but our preference and our actions for dealing with this matter remain through peaceful diplomatic means. Nothing has changed in that regard."

However, numerous signs point to a U.S. strike on Iran in the near future:


A leading member of America's Jewish community told Newsmax in April that a military strike on Iran was likely and that Vice President Cheney's March trip through the Middle East came in preparation for the U.S. attack.


The Air Force recently declared the B-2 bomber fleet — a critical weapons system in any U.S. attack on Iran — as airworthy again. The Air Force had halted B-2 flights after a February crash in Guam. As Newsmax reported, the Air Force has refitted its stealth bombers to carry 30,000-pound "bunker buster" bombs, needed to destroy Iran's hardened nuclear facilities.


A second U.S. aircraft carrier, the USS Abraham Lincoln, joined the carrier USS Harry S. Truman in the Persian Gulf in May, carrying far more weaponry and ammunition than on previous deployments.


Israel is gearing up for war. In April, it conducted its largest homeland military exercises ever. The Jewish-American source said Israel is "preparing for heavy casualties," expecting to be the target of Iranian retribution following the U.S. attack.


Saudi Arabia is taking steps to prepare for possible radioactive contamination from U.S. destruction of Iran's nuclear facilities. The Saudi government reportedly approved nuclear fallout preparations a day after Cheney met with the kingdom's highest-ranking officials.


The USS Ross, an Aegis-class destroyer, has taken up station off the coast of Lebanon. Military observers speculate it is there to help defend Israel from missile attacks.

Adm. Michael Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said at a recent Pentagon briefing that the Iranians are systematically importing and training Shiite militia fighters, who slip back across the Iraqi border to kill American troops.

And Israeli intelligence has predicted that Iran will acquire its first nuclear device in 2009, much earlier than previous U.S. estimates."

Looks like AIPAC knows this is their last chance to turn the screws on middle east politics.

[FOTD]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/29/world/middleeast/29iran.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

"A rival to Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was elected by an overwhelming majority as speaker of the Parliament on Wednesday, a strong signal of growing impatience with his economic policies and a possible sign of a political shift in the country."

As US Threatens Iran Over Enriching Uranium, Bush Promises to Give Enriched Uranium to Saudi Arabia
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/5/20/as_us_threatens_iran_over_enriching

[FOTD]

http://www.alternet.org/audits/87079/?page=entire

Rumors of War: Is Bush Gearing Up to Attack Iran?

"According to the Israeli website DEBKAfile, Cheney's trip to the Middle East in March was seen in the region as a possible harbinger of war. "The vice president's choice of capitals for his tour is a pointer to the fact that the military option, off since December, may be on again," DEBKA concluded. "America will need the cooperation of all four [countries he visited] -- Oman, Saudi Arabia, Israel and Turkey."

"While the White House portrays the militias in Iraq and Hezbollah as Tehran's cat's-paw, that is nonsense. The militias in both countries will act on the basis of what is in their own interests, not Iran's."

"A U.S. war would deeply divide Europe as well, and might lead to a German withdrawal from Afghanistan. What Russia's, China's and India's responses would be is not clear. China and India are major clients for Iranian natural gas."

"Once unleashed, however, no one controls the dogs of war. As hard as it is to imagine, war with Iran might top the Iraq War as a foreign policy disaster."